But what stops you from re-arranging and placing the most often used application shortcuts on your desktop in Windows 95? And indeed, most users do just that. The reviewer correctly points out that this new UI doesn't really add anything, only takes things away. Shortcuts+search have been around for a while.
Actually I have no opinion on Windows 8 because I have not seen it myself, but this review fits both Gnome Shell and Unity very well: it's like they all suddenly joined the iphone-as-a-desktop cult.
Typing the application titles does not work for me. Because for frequently used apps I already have hotkeys or sidebar icons, but I never remember the names of rarely used apps: should I be typing "Monitor settings" or "Display" or "Desktop" or whatever, if I need to change the background or a screen resolution?
Lastly, is that really the biggest problem with the modern desktops: finding apps? Seriously, of all things that could possibly be made better, why are they all trying to re-invent how we're launching applications?
> but I never remember the names of rarely used apps: should I be typing "Monitor settings" or "Display" or "Desktop" or whatever, if I need to change the background or a screen resolution?
Windows Vista and up automatically help you with this. Even typing things like "DPI" or "wheel" into control panel come up with a list of all possible relevant actions that could be taken, as opposed to just different panel screens. Here are a few examples of that in action:
> why are they all trying to re-invent how we're launching applications?
My comment said why! It's not a re-invention, just a unification of the look and feel with the rest of Microsoft's ecosystem (xbox, phones, tablets, PCs will all have the same "start" screens).
I hate the wizardly control panel, incidentally. Just the other day, I was trying to remove a device. After maybe five minutes I decided it's not possible, until some time later accidentally finding the right button to press. It's very much not clear to me anymore what I can do, or how.
Not sure whether you're removing drivers or ejecting hardware, but Device Manager is still in the control panel and Eject Hardware is where it always was. I wasn't aware of any other way you could do it, past or present.
> why are they all trying to re-invent how we're launching applications?
I understand that they want to grow the tablet and mobile market, but forcing a tablet interface on desktop users seems like a serious strategic error on their part.
Microsoft has lost their sense of identity. IBM is not a sexy company. IBM is not in the news. But IBM knows who they are - a mature company that quietly goes about making a solid profits. Instead of embracing who they are, Microsoft seems to be chasing everyone else.
Those rumors are BS, nothing is being blocked. The basis for them seems to be that they have removed implementation code for the Windows 7 start menu that was left in earlier Windows 8 builds. Third parties can still write their own start menu replacements, they just won't work if they're based on hacking Microsoft's leftover start menu code.
>"But what stops you from re-arranging and placing the most often used application shortcuts on your desktop in Windows 95?"
Nothing. Lots of people did it that way...even back in the Windows 3.1 days. And I suspect that Microsoft has mountains of data showing that lots of people still do.
This is vastly different from the wild speculation and design dogma that went into Unity's design.
I haven't played with Unity much, but I'm running F17 and I have to say, as much as I despised Gnome 3 when I first encountered it, Gnome Shell extensions[1] have taken it from an unusable pile of excrement to a legitimate improvement on Gnome 2. Gnome Shell, for all of its design faux pas, is built on an incredibly modifiable foundation that allows you to reconfigure just about everything. Moreover, these modifications are dead simple to share (easier than adding an extension to Chrome).
Sure, it's worse than just getting the damned thing right in the first place, but it's much better to get things wrong and make them easy to fix, as Gnome has done, than get them wrong and make them unfixable, as Microsoft has. For that reason, I resent the comparison of Metro to Gnome Shell, although I get where it comes from. There's nothing wrong with Gnome that can't be fixed with some some js and CSS. Your UI is essentially a web app that you can modify arbitrarily, which is an incredibly powerful idea. Metro may have some themes, but there'll likely be no way to fix its underlying issues.
Can you give some examples of Gnome extensions you find useful? I tried perusing the list a few times but nothing really jumped out at me as a huge improvement.
It seems it's not really a popular opinion, but I also like Gnome Shell a fair bit. It just gets out of the way for the most part.
Sure. I started off by installing cairo-dock (pkg, not ext), a nice OSX-style autohiding dock (tweaks req'd). This allowed me to install Remove Activities Button[1] and Applications Menu[2], which combined to replace the rather useless and annoying Activities menu with a standard Gnome2-style applications menu, and get rid of the ugly dash that was stuck to the left of my screen, hogging real estate. This had the sanity-preserving side-effect of removing the stupid hot corner to Overview that I would accidentally trip every other time I tried to hit the back button in the browser. It can still be accessed with the Tux/Windows key. I also installed Force Quit[3], which puts a little 'x' next to the Applications menu. Click it, then click any misbehaving window to kill -9 all procs associated with it. Haven't had to use it, but it seems handy.
Next, I installed Brightness Control[4], as the fn+arrow keys don't work worth a damn, and Advanced Volume Mixer[5], which replaces the standard volume bar with a separate bar for each app. I installed Remove Accessibility[6], just to de-clutter, and All-in-One Places[7], to give me some handy shortcuts.
Quit Button[8] replaces the username "status" menu with the familiar options from Gnome2, and Settings Center[9] gives me quick and easy access to a variety of settings menus. Finally, Frippery Move Clock[10] puts the clock over in the top-right corner, where it belongs. I'll probably look into installing some workspace-related extensions as I become more comfortable with the system.
The combined result of these small changes is a system that I find far more friendly and usable. As I said above, the only thing I find wrong with Gnome3 is the defaults. Gnome Shell is incredibly extensible, and absolutely gorgeous. It now works for me like a cross between Gnome2 and OSX, with some handy extra features thrown in. Some of these changes are fairly major, while others are tiny tweaks, but I love how simple and easy they are to experiment and play with. Most changes are instant, and enabling/disabling extensions simply involves flipping a toggle switch on the extensions web page. I've only been running F17 for a week, so I'm sure I'll discover more changes to make the GUI just right.
I prefer the start screen to desktop shortcuts because, since it’s really a popup menu of sorts, you can bring it up and (single-)click to open up a window on top of your existing window configuration without disturbing that. With desktop shortcuts, even if you use the Win-D shortcut, when you double-click on an icon it forgets your previous window configuration, so you have to manually restore everything. Another thing I like to do with the start screen is keep groups of shortcuts to folders and apps associated with activities or projects I’m working on. I can keep those groups off to the right most of the time, then easily move a whole group to the first page when I know I’ll be working on that for a while.
> even if you use the Win-D shortcut, when you double-click on an icon it forgets your previous window configuration, so you have to manually restore everything.
Windows+M to minimize everything, Windows+shift+M to bring everything back. My favorite shortcut since Windows 95 :)
I don't know about Windows 8, but Unity's applications are well-tagged with appropriate search terms. For example, typing either "monitor" or "display" brings the Display shortcut (which includes screen resolution settings) to the top, while typing either "background" or "desktop" will bring the "Appearance" shortcut (which lets you change desktop background) to the top.
They should have kept the main interface same as Windows 7, and the whole Unity-like interface thing (which they call Metro), should have been an application which you would run to make it more friendly to touch - if you need.
That's exactly what it's like! I've been using Windows 8 on my sole laptop since April and only interact with Metro when I want to (which isn't very often). I use Visual Studio, Photoshop, Powershell, etc. the rest of the time just as before.
On the same token, I never remember how to update the PATH variable in Windows, but in Windows 7 if you type 'PATH' in the search box on the start menu, it pulls up the 'Edit environment variables' screen as a search result.
MS has done their research, and is making slow, incremental progress on making their OS easier to use.
Actually I have no opinion on Windows 8 because I have not seen it myself, but this review fits both Gnome Shell and Unity very well: it's like they all suddenly joined the iphone-as-a-desktop cult.
Typing the application titles does not work for me. Because for frequently used apps I already have hotkeys or sidebar icons, but I never remember the names of rarely used apps: should I be typing "Monitor settings" or "Display" or "Desktop" or whatever, if I need to change the background or a screen resolution?
Lastly, is that really the biggest problem with the modern desktops: finding apps? Seriously, of all things that could possibly be made better, why are they all trying to re-invent how we're launching applications?